Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Problem with latest Millennium Edition MS Security Updates.

Last response: in Windows 95/98/ME
Share
Anonymous
a b 8 Security
March 17, 2005 10:49:55 AM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsme.general (More info?)

This morning I installed the newest MS Security Updates on my system. In
particular, the following:

_____________________________________________________
Security Update for Windows Me (KB888113)
Download size: 177 KB, < 1 minute
A security issue has been identified that could allow an attacker to
compromise your Windows-based system and gain control over it. You can
help protect your computer by installing this update from Microsoft.
After you install this item, you may have to restart your computer. Read
more...

This item has been selected.AddRemove
Security Update for Windows Me (KB891711)
Download size: 144 KB, < 1 minute
A security issue has been identified that could allow an attacker to
compromise your Windows-based system and gain control over it. You can
help protect your computer by installing this update from Microsoft.
After you install this item, you may have to restart your computer. Read
more...
_____________________________________________________

The first update modifies the way Windows handles HTML links and the
second one modifies the way icons and cursors behave. After I did this,
when I ran Mozilla and did a search in Google, then clicked on ANY link,
my computer did a total, black screen of death crash. Rebooting required
that I run scandisk on ALL of my hard drives and partitions, and it
always found four file fragments which it deleted. After I ran System
Restore and then verified that the updates had been totally removed,
clicking on links no longer crashed my computer.

Your mileage may vary of course, but this is what happened to me. I
would be very interested in knowing if anybody else using Mozilla or
Firefox has similar problems with these updates.

--
Regards from John Corliss
Anonymous
a b 8 Security
March 17, 2005 7:00:58 PM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsme.general (More info?)

The problems you are seeing appear to be being caused by the 891711 hotfix
with some users having major problems such as you are seeing and others,
myself included, having none. The cause of the problems and BSODs seem to
be related to the video chip and version of the driver on the box rather
than the browser or other software installed.

Out of curiosity what video card do you have installed in the affected box
and what version driver is it using?
--
http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/expertzone/meetexper...
In memory of a very dear friend, Windows MVP Alex Nichol

Mike Maltby MS-MVP
mike.maltby@gmail.com


John Corliss <jcorliss@fake.invalid> wrote:

> This morning I installed the newest MS Security Updates on my system.
> In particular, the following:
>
> _____________________________________________________
> Security Update for Windows Me (KB888113)
> Download size: 177 KB, < 1 minute
> A security issue has been identified that could allow an attacker to
> compromise your Windows-based system and gain control over it. You can
> help protect your computer by installing this update from Microsoft.
> After you install this item, you may have to restart your computer.
> Read more...
>
> This item has been selected.AddRemove
> Security Update for Windows Me (KB891711)
> Download size: 144 KB, < 1 minute
> A security issue has been identified that could allow an attacker to
> compromise your Windows-based system and gain control over it. You can
> help protect your computer by installing this update from Microsoft.
> After you install this item, you may have to restart your computer.
> Read more...
> _____________________________________________________
>
> The first update modifies the way Windows handles HTML links and the
> second one modifies the way icons and cursors behave. After I did
> this, when I ran Mozilla and did a search in Google, then clicked on
> ANY link, my computer did a total, black screen of death crash.
> Rebooting required that I run scandisk on ALL of my hard drives and
> partitions, and it always found four file fragments which it deleted.
> After I ran System Restore and then verified that the updates had
> been totally removed, clicking on links no longer crashed my computer.
>
> Your mileage may vary of course, but this is what happened to me. I
> would be very interested in knowing if anybody else using Mozilla or
> Firefox has similar problems with these updates.
Anonymous
a b 8 Security
March 17, 2005 7:00:59 PM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsme.general (More info?)

Mike M wrote:
> The problems you are seeing appear to be being caused by the 891711
> hotfix with some users having major problems such as you are seeing and
> others, myself included, having none. The cause of the problems and
> BSODs seem to be related to the video chip and version of the driver on
> the box rather than the browser or other software installed.
>
> Out of curiosity what video card do you have installed in the affected
> box and what version driver is it using?

It's a Leadtek WinFast(R) A280LE with an nVIDIA GeForce4 Ti 4200 chip
running in an AGP8X slot. Driver is from nVIDIA, is dated 07/03/2002 and
the version is 4.13.01.3100.

--
Regards from John Corliss
Related resources
Anonymous
a b 8 Security
March 17, 2005 11:27:43 PM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsme.general (More info?)

John Corliss <jcorliss@fake.invalid> wrote:

> It's a Leadtek WinFast(R) A280LE with an nVIDIA GeForce4 Ti 4200 chip
> running in an AGP8X slot. Driver is from nVIDIA, is dated 07/03/2002
> and the version is 4.13.01.3100.

Thanks. Is there any chance that you could try changing or updating the
driver and see if that resolves the problem?
--
http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/expertzone/meetexper...
In memory of a very dear friend, Windows MVP Alex Nichol

Mike Maltby MS-MVP
mike.maltby@gmail.com
Anonymous
a b 8 Security
March 18, 2005 10:40:41 AM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsme.general (More info?)

Mike M wrote:
> John Corliss wrote:
>
>> It's a Leadtek WinFast(R) A280LE with an nVIDIA GeForce4 Ti 4200 chip
>> running in an AGP8X slot. Driver is from nVIDIA, is dated 07/03/2002
>> and the version is 4.13.01.3100.
>
> Thanks. Is there any chance that you could try changing or updating the
> driver and see if that resolves the problem?

Sorry Mike, I'm too afraid of making a change to my system that will
mess things up even more. There are two reasons that a vendor comes out
with a new version of a driver:

1. To make a newer piece of hardware perform better.
2. To make an older piece of hardware (like my graphics card) perform
worse, so as to convince an end user to get their latest product.

My system works now and I want to keep it that way. Maybe the next time
I do a total system reinstall, just before I do it I'll try the newer
driver version.

--
Regards from John Corliss
Anonymous
a b 8 Security
March 18, 2005 7:02:31 PM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsme.general (More info?)

Whilst I can't disagree with your sentiment not to possibly wreck an
otherwise well performing system I feel you are nevertheless being unduly
cynical about manufacturer's motives in updating drivers. I have yet to
see evidence of your scenario 2 and as for your scenario 1. I feel that
should be restated to read 1. To make a piece of hardware perform better.

It is also possible that you have forgotten one of the benefits of running
Win Me, that is system restore, which is designed for just this sort of
thing, that is create a checkpoint, install a new driver. If all is well
continue, if not then roll back to the checkpoint created before the
driver update.

Regards,

--
Mike Maltby MS-MVP
mike.maltby@gmail.com


John Corliss <jcorliss@fake.invalid> wrote:

> Sorry Mike, I'm too afraid of making a change to my system that will
> mess things up even more. There are two reasons that a vendor comes
> out with a new version of a driver:
>
> 1. To make a newer piece of hardware perform better.
> 2. To make an older piece of hardware (like my graphics card) perform
> worse, so as to convince an end user to get their latest product.
>
> My system works now and I want to keep it that way. Maybe the next
> time I do a total system reinstall, just before I do it I'll try the
> newer driver version.
Anonymous
a b 8 Security
March 18, 2005 7:02:32 PM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsme.general (More info?)

And one can often roll back a driver update by using the feature in Device
Manager.

IMO, testing a new hardware driver is not a crisis in WinME.
--
Jack E. Martinelli 2002-05 MS MVP for Shell/User / DTS
Help us help you: http://www.dts-L.org/goodpost.htm

http://www.microsoft.com/athome/security/protect/defaul...
In Memorium: Alex Nichol
http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/expertzone/meetexper...
Your cooperation is very appreciated.
------
"Mike M" <No_Spam@Corned_Beef.Only> wrote in message
news:eHEGOP9KFHA.732@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
> Whilst I can't disagree with your sentiment not to possibly wreck an
> otherwise well performing system I feel you are nevertheless being unduly
> cynical about manufacturer's motives in updating drivers. I have yet to
> see evidence of your scenario 2 and as for your scenario 1. I feel that
> should be restated to read 1. To make a piece of hardware perform better.
>
> It is also possible that you have forgotten one of the benefits of running
> Win Me, that is system restore, which is designed for just this sort of
> thing, that is create a checkpoint, install a new driver. If all is well
> continue, if not then roll back to the checkpoint created before the
> driver update.
>
> Regards,
>
> --
> Mike Maltby MS-MVP
> mike.maltby@gmail.com
>
>
> John Corliss <jcorliss@fake.invalid> wrote:
>
> > Sorry Mike, I'm too afraid of making a change to my system that will
> > mess things up even more. There are two reasons that a vendor comes
> > out with a new version of a driver:
> >
> > 1. To make a newer piece of hardware perform better.
> > 2. To make an older piece of hardware (like my graphics card) perform
> > worse, so as to convince an end user to get their latest product.
> >
> > My system works now and I want to keep it that way. Maybe the next
> > time I do a total system reinstall, just before I do it I'll try the
> > newer driver version.
>
Anonymous
a b 8 Security
March 20, 2005 8:31:17 AM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsme.general (More info?)

Mike M wrote:
> John Corliss wrote:
>
>> Sorry Mike, I'm too afraid of making a change to my system that will
>> mess things up even more. There are two reasons that a vendor comes
>> out with a new version of a driver:
>>
>> 1. To make a newer piece of hardware perform better.
>> 2. To make an older piece of hardware (like my graphics card) perform
>> worse, so as to convince an end user to get their latest product.
>>
>> My system works now and I want to keep it that way. Maybe the next
>> time I do a total system reinstall, just before I do it I'll try the
>> newer driver version.
>
> Whilst I can't disagree with your sentiment not to possibly wreck an
> otherwise well performing system I feel you are nevertheless being
> unduly cynical about manufacturer's motives in updating drivers. I have
> yet to see evidence of your scenario 2 and as for your scenario 1. I
> feel that should be restated to read 1. To make a piece of hardware
> perform better.
>
> It is also possible that you have forgotten one of the benefits of
> running Win Me, that is system restore, which is designed for just this
> sort of thing, that is create a checkpoint, install a new driver. If
> all is well continue, if not then roll back to the checkpoint created
> before the driver update.

Mike,
The most direct example of motivation number two that I've personally
observed was when I got this computer and hooked my old Hewlett Packard
855C printer up to it. When I used the default device driver for it that
came with Millennium Edition, the output from the printer looked like it
was coming from a dot matrix printer, no matter what the settings. Not
only that, but many of the features and options I had grown used to in
the old driver were now gone. To correct the problem, I removed the
printer in Device Manager and then installed the old Windows 95 driver
for it. After I did that, the 855C's output once again appeared normal
and access to the old features and options was restored.

It's hard for me to believe that there was any other reason for this
problem than the second one. In fact, if I'd allowed ABS to send me this
computer with XP Home (I would have gone with Windows 98 had it been
available, but had to settle for ME instead) like they wanted
originally, I would most likely not have been able to install the old 16
bit driver for the printer at all.

A lot of people tend to get new printers, scanners, etc. when they
upgrade their computer. I, however, paid a lot of money for my 855C
(about as much as one would pay for, say, a good clothes drier) and I
fully intend to get my money's worth of printing from it. In fact, it
still works perfectly and I have no intention of getting a new printer
just because this old one doesn't work as well with updated drivers.

It may seem cynical to attribute the motivation of greed to vendors, but
IMO it's simply being realistic. Greed is part of human nature and (no
offense) to believe that hardware manufacturers aren't motivated by it
like everybody else is being naive.

--
Regards from John Corliss
Anonymous
a b 8 Security
March 20, 2005 6:17:54 PM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsme.general (More info?)

There may be alot of reasons why that happened, including f'rinstance a
really good driver writer leaving the company.


Rick


John Corliss wrote:
> Mike M wrote:
>
>> John Corliss wrote:
>>
>>> Sorry Mike, I'm too afraid of making a change to my system that will
>>> mess things up even more. There are two reasons that a vendor comes
>>> out with a new version of a driver:
>>>
>>> 1. To make a newer piece of hardware perform better.
>>> 2. To make an older piece of hardware (like my graphics card) perform
>>> worse, so as to convince an end user to get their latest product.
>>>
>>> My system works now and I want to keep it that way. Maybe the next
>>> time I do a total system reinstall, just before I do it I'll try the
>>> newer driver version.
>
> >
>
>> Whilst I can't disagree with your sentiment not to possibly wreck an
>> otherwise well performing system I feel you are nevertheless being
>> unduly cynical about manufacturer's motives in updating drivers. I
>> have yet to see evidence of your scenario 2 and as for your scenario
>> 1. I feel that should be restated to read 1. To make a piece of
>> hardware perform better.
>>
>> It is also possible that you have forgotten one of the benefits of
>> running Win Me, that is system restore, which is designed for just
>> this sort of thing, that is create a checkpoint, install a new
>> driver. If all is well continue, if not then roll back to the
>> checkpoint created before the driver update.
>
>
> Mike,
> The most direct example of motivation number two that I've personally
> observed was when I got this computer and hooked my old Hewlett Packard
> 855C printer up to it. When I used the default device driver for it that
> came with Millennium Edition, the output from the printer looked like it
> was coming from a dot matrix printer, no matter what the settings. Not
> only that, but many of the features and options I had grown used to in
> the old driver were now gone. To correct the problem, I removed the
> printer in Device Manager and then installed the old Windows 95 driver
> for it. After I did that, the 855C's output once again appeared normal
> and access to the old features and options was restored.
>
> It's hard for me to believe that there was any other reason for this
> problem than the second one. In fact, if I'd allowed ABS to send me this
> computer with XP Home (I would have gone with Windows 98 had it been
> available, but had to settle for ME instead) like they wanted
> originally, I would most likely not have been able to install the old 16
> bit driver for the printer at all.
>
> A lot of people tend to get new printers, scanners, etc. when they
> upgrade their computer. I, however, paid a lot of money for my 855C
> (about as much as one would pay for, say, a good clothes drier) and I
> fully intend to get my money's worth of printing from it. In fact, it
> still works perfectly and I have no intention of getting a new printer
> just because this old one doesn't work as well with updated drivers.
>
> It may seem cynical to attribute the motivation of greed to vendors, but
> IMO it's simply being realistic. Greed is part of human nature and (no
> offense) to believe that hardware manufacturers aren't motivated by it
> like everybody else is being naive.
>
Anonymous
a b 8 Security
March 20, 2005 6:17:55 PM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsme.general (More info?)

Rick T wrote:
> There may be alot of reasons why that happened, including f'rinstance a
> really good driver writer leaving the company.

That indeed may have been the case. On the other hand, it still could
have been reason number two. Still, as I said, it may seem cynical to
attribute the motivation of greed to vendors, but IMO it's simply being
realistic. Greed is part of human nature and (no offense) to believe
that hardware manufacturers aren't motivated by it like everybody else
is being naive.

--
Regards from John Corliss
Anonymous
a b 8 Security
March 22, 2005 9:05:16 PM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsme.general (More info?)

In article <O3puypwKFHA.688@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl>, Mike M says...

> Out of curiosity what video card do you have installed in the affected box
> and what version driver is it using?

Is anybody building catalog of the various video cards associated with the
Kb891711 problem? So far I have seen nVidia and ATi cards listed. In my
case, it is the on-board Intel 82810 chip set, though I am trying to run
down another post where the author mentioned problems with the Intel 82815
chip set. According to the Intel site, the 82810 and 82815 chips use the
same drivers, and his was an older version.

I am less certain, now, that video is the cause. I have two fairly identical
HP Pavilions with the same 82810 video chips and drivers. KB891711 works on
one, but not the other. I sectioned the items in the startup group, using
'msconfig', and determined that I have problems until I stop the Mercury
Mail MTA program (v.4.01.b) from starting. I am not convinced that Mercury
Mail is the problem, either. The whole thing seems highly random, with
different video chip sets, video driver versions, and general software
differences.

One thing I do know; the computer with the problems had a near meltdown when
the power supply fan failed. I have since replaced the power supply, but
discovered that the original P.S. was borderline adequate for the hardware
that shipped from the factory. Adding a second RAM stick and HDD probably
stressed things a bit. The new P.S. has a higher power rating than the
original, and the other computer also had the P.S. replace; on general
principles because it hadn't failed.

The other computer, without the failures, works fine. I wonder if I have a
failing RAM stick, and am starting to wonder if any of the others with
problems may be having RAM problems. The problem there is that the nVidia
and ATi video hardware probably include on board RAM where my computers have
1 MByte of the system RAM dedicated to the video system.

--
Norman
~Win dain a lotica, En vai tu ri, Si lo ta
~Fin dein a loluca, En dragu a sei lain
~Vi fa-ru les shutai am, En riga-lint
Anonymous
a b 8 Security
March 23, 2005 2:26:10 AM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsme.general (More info?)

"N. Miller" <anonymous@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.1caa6eb7c0a8737798a704@msnews.microsoft.com...
> In article <O3puypwKFHA.688@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl>, Mike M says...
>
> > Out of curiosity what video card do you have installed in the affected box
> > and what version driver is it using?
>
> Is anybody building catalog of the various video cards associated with the
> Kb891711 problem? So far I have seen nVidia and ATi cards listed.

Oops, I must have missed this in the flurry of message.

I have an ATI RADEON 9000, w/64M of RAM.
I'm running the latest (February 9, 2005) drivers for this card.

- Bill
Anonymous
a b 8 Security
March 23, 2005 10:22:35 AM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsme.general (More info?)

This is one of the most modern cards I have seen reporting the problem.
Thank you.
--
Jack E. Martinelli 2002-05 MS MVP for Shell/User / DTS
Help us help you: http://www.dts-L.org/goodpost.htm

http://www.microsoft.com/athome/security/protect/defaul...
In Memorium: Alex Nichol
http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/expertzone/meetexper...
Your cooperation is very appreciated.
------
"Bill Leary" <Bill_Leary@msn.com> wrote in message
news:GtKdnRiu1N4Nc93fRVn-tA@giganews.com...
> "N. Miller" <anonymous@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:MPG.1caa6eb7c0a8737798a704@msnews.microsoft.com...
> > In article <O3puypwKFHA.688@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl>, Mike M says...
> >
> > > Out of curiosity what video card do you have installed in the affected
box
> > > and what version driver is it using?
> >
> > Is anybody building catalog of the various video cards associated with
the
> > Kb891711 problem? So far I have seen nVidia and ATi cards listed.
>
> Oops, I must have missed this in the flurry of message.
>
> I have an ATI RADEON 9000, w/64M of RAM.
> I'm running the latest (February 9, 2005) drivers for this card.
>
> - Bill
>
>
Anonymous
a b 8 Security
March 23, 2005 10:25:30 AM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsme.general (More info?)

Norman, the problem may be with certain icons, or other video components
associated with MS05-002, incorporated in the Mercury Mail program.
Only a programmer, debugging the program, on an affected machine is likely
to learn how it is happening.

--
Jack E. Martinelli 2002-05 MS MVP for Shell/User / DTS
Help us help you: http://www.dts-L.org/goodpost.htm

http://www.microsoft.com/athome/security/protect/defaul...
In Memorium: Alex Nichol
http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/expertzone/meetexper...
Your cooperation is very appreciated.
------
"N. Miller" <anonymous@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.1caa6eb7c0a8737798a704@msnews.microsoft.com...
> In article <O3puypwKFHA.688@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl>, Mike M says...
>
> > Out of curiosity what video card do you have installed in the affected
box
> > and what version driver is it using?
>
> Is anybody building catalog of the various video cards associated with the
> Kb891711 problem? So far I have seen nVidia and ATi cards listed. In my
> case, it is the on-board Intel 82810 chip set, though I am trying to run
> down another post where the author mentioned problems with the Intel 82815
> chip set. According to the Intel site, the 82810 and 82815 chips use the
> same drivers, and his was an older version.
>
> I am less certain, now, that video is the cause. I have two fairly
identical
> HP Pavilions with the same 82810 video chips and drivers. KB891711 works
on
> one, but not the other. I sectioned the items in the startup group, using
> 'msconfig', and determined that I have problems until I stop the Mercury
> Mail MTA program (v.4.01.b) from starting. I am not convinced that Mercury
> Mail is the problem, either. The whole thing seems highly random, with
> different video chip sets, video driver versions, and general software
> differences.
>
> One thing I do know; the computer with the problems had a near meltdown
when
> the power supply fan failed. I have since replaced the power supply, but
> discovered that the original P.S. was borderline adequate for the hardware
> that shipped from the factory. Adding a second RAM stick and HDD probably
> stressed things a bit. The new P.S. has a higher power rating than the
> original, and the other computer also had the P.S. replace; on general
> principles because it hadn't failed.
>
> The other computer, without the failures, works fine. I wonder if I have a
> failing RAM stick, and am starting to wonder if any of the others with
> problems may be having RAM problems. The problem there is that the nVidia
> and ATi video hardware probably include on board RAM where my computers
have
> 1 MByte of the system RAM dedicated to the video system.
>
> --
> Norman
> ~Win dain a lotica, En vai tu ri, Si lo ta
> ~Fin dein a loluca, En dragu a sei lain
> ~Vi fa-ru les shutai am, En riga-lint
Anonymous
a b 8 Security
March 23, 2005 10:41:44 AM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsme.general (More info?)

Jack, I also have the Radeon 9000 card/64mb. I have had no trouble
with the kb891711. However after seeing so many problems posted which
apparently relate to that patch, I have disabled it via msconfig.
-----

On Wed, 23 Mar 2005 07:22:35 -0500, "Jack E Martinelli"
<jemartin_DELETE@NO_SPAM_gis.net> wrote:

>This is one of the most modern cards I have seen reporting the problem.
>Thank you.
Anonymous
a b 8 Security
March 23, 2005 12:03:45 PM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsme.general (More info?)

If you had no problems following the update, I recommend re-enabling it so
your machine is protected from the exploit as described in MS05-002, and KB
891711.
--
Jack E. Martinelli 2002-05 MS MVP for Shell/User / DTS
Help us help you: http://www.dts-L.org/goodpost.htm

http://www.microsoft.com/athome/security/protect/defaul...
In Memorium: Alex Nichol
http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/expertzone/meetexper...
Your cooperation is very appreciated.
------
"XO" <XO@here.com> wrote in message
news:hbs241pipbsd9i3m9tdnrgul2pqkjbcfjl@4ax.com...
> Jack, I also have the Radeon 9000 card/64mb. I have had no trouble
> with the kb891711. However after seeing so many problems posted which
> apparently relate to that patch, I have disabled it via msconfig.
> -----
>
> On Wed, 23 Mar 2005 07:22:35 -0500, "Jack E Martinelli"
> <jemartin_DELETE@NO_SPAM_gis.net> wrote:
>
> >This is one of the most modern cards I have seen reporting the problem.
> >Thank you.
>
Anonymous
a b 8 Security
March 23, 2005 6:27:23 PM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsme.general (More info?)

What version of the ATI Catalyst video drivers are you using?
--
Mike Maltby MS-MVP
mike.maltby@gmail.com


XO <XO@here.com> wrote:

> Jack, I also have the Radeon 9000 card/64mb. I have had no trouble
> with the kb891711. However after seeing so many problems posted which
> apparently relate to that patch, I have disabled it via msconfig.
Anonymous
a b 8 Security
March 23, 2005 6:27:24 PM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsme.general (More info?)

On Wed, 23 Mar 2005 15:27:23 -0000, "Mike M"
<No_Spam@Corned_Beef.Only> wrote:

>What version of the ATI Catalyst video drivers are you using?
--------
Driver date:1-17-05
ATI2DRAG.DRV=4.14.01.9150
ATI2VXAG.VXD=same as above.

Reactivated kb891711. No problems so far.
Anonymous
a b 8 Security
March 23, 2005 6:27:24 PM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsme.general (More info?)

On Wed, 23 Mar 2005 15:27:23 -0000, "Mike M"
<No_Spam@Corned_Beef.Only> wrote:

>What version of the ATI Catalyst video drivers are you using?
------
Also, the Packaging Version of the driver download is
8.03.98.3-050117a-021000E
---
Anonymous
a b 8 Security
March 23, 2005 9:00:33 PM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsme.general (More info?)

XO <XO@here.com> wrote:

>> What version of the ATI Catalyst video drivers are you using?
> ------
> Also, the Packaging Version of the driver download is
> 8.03.98.3-050117a-021000E

Thanks for the info. That looks like the latest Catalyst 5.2 drivers for
Win Me.
--
Mike Maltby MS-MVP
mike.maltby@gmail.com
Anonymous
a b 8 Security
March 23, 2005 9:00:34 PM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsme.general (More info?)

On Wed, 23 Mar 2005 18:00:33 -0000, "Mike M"
<No_Spam@Corned_Beef.Only> wrote:

>XO <XO@here.com> wrote:
>
>>> What version of the ATI Catalyst video drivers are you using?
>> ------
>> Also, the Packaging Version of the driver download is
>> 8.03.98.3-050117a-021000E
>
>Thanks for the info. That looks like the latest Catalyst 5.2 drivers for
>Win Me.
---------
The full file name (found it) is:
"wme-8-03-98-3-050117a-021000e.exe"
size=14,764KB
!